The Veepstakes: Mitt Romney

The 7-10: Palmer on Politics ^ | July 4, 2008 | Anthony Palmer

[theseventen]

NOTE: This was originally posted on my blog at The 7-10, but I thought the readers here at The Free Republic might be interested in this post as well.

This post is part of an ongoing series assessing various names being floated around for vice presidential picks. In this particular post, I reexamined Mitt Romney.

-----

The former Massachusetts governor seems to be the most logical and most beneficial pick for John McCain. I was originally skeptical about his political future, but have since become more bullish about his chances.

Romney will not help deliver Massachusetts, but it could make the light blue states of New Jersey and Michigan a bit more likely. The fact that he is Michigan's favorite son and that Michigan's economy is faltering under Democratic Governor Jennifer Granholm's leadership makes Michigan perhaps the single best Republican pickup opportunity after New Hampshire. Gov. Granholm's struggles make Romney's business experience an even stronger asset. This street cred Romney has on the economy has the added bonus of potentially putting an end to the nagging questions about McCain's knowledge of economic issues. And given today's fragile economy and rising gas prices, voters outside of Michigan may also respond favorably to Romney's economic message.

But McCain won't be the only person who benefits from this selection. If McCain wins the election, he would likely serve just one term. This would then put Romney next in line to ascend to the presidency in 2012. And if McCain loses the election, Romney's stock value will have increased so much by supporting the Republican nominee and defending conservative values that he should be the frontrunner in the 2012 campaign.

Of course, every rose has its thorns. The Republicans are trying to hammer Barack Obama on changing his positions for political expediency. Framing him as a typical politician may be smart because the more voters doubt Obama, the more comfortable they will feel with McCain. However, adding Mitt Romney to the ticket will make it a lot harder for the Republicans to attack Obama on changing his positions because of Romney's infamous contortions on gay rights and abortion rights. McCain even mocked Romney as the candidate of change in one of the debates.

Also, McCain has a charisma deficit that is only further magnified by Obama's galvanizing speaking ability. Romney would not do anything to offset this, as his inability to connect with voters is partly to blame for his failed run for the nomination.

His great personal wealth could help McCain keep up with Obama's advertising budget, it would also remove another weapon from the GOP arsenal. Having a net worth of over $200 million would only make Republicans look ridiculous as they try to label Barack Obama as an elitist even though he is worth far less. It could also bring back stories of Cindy McCain's net worth, which some estimate at over $100 million. That might take away some of the edge from attacks on Michelle Obama.

In terms of demographics, his Mormonism would undoubtedly help him in the purple state of Nevada, which is right next door to the home base of Mormonism--Utah. But this is a mixed bag because McCain is having trouble solidifying support among the evangelical wing of his base. This is unfair to Romney, but the primaries proved that there is significant resistance to him because of his faith. Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee capitalized on this.

Should McCain choose Romney, the Obama campaign may feel more optimistic about evangelicals either staying home or even voting for Obama who is making inroads with the religious community by talking about faith. These voters are not happy about Romney's previous positions on issues important to them, like gay rights, gun rights, and abortion. This would open up North Carolina, Georgia, Missouri, and possibly Arkansas (if the Clintons campaign for him there). If Obama snatches North Carolina, that would force McCain to win Iowa and Wisconsin. If Missouri goes blue, that would force McCain to add Minnesota to his column. Money McCain has to spend defending traditional red states like North Carolina is money he is not spending on offense in Pennsylvania, Oregon, and Minnesota.

In short, the three main benefits of a Romney selection would be money, Michigan, and economic competence. But he neutralizes several Republican weapons and may potentially do McCain harm by not shoring up his base in the South. McCain could certainly do worse than selecting Romney, but this pick may introduce a bit too many unintended consequences to make McCain comfortable selecting him.

[moose2004]

Sarah Palin, not Romney.

[kbennkc]

We spend a lot of energy trying to persuade people to see the conservative light only to smack the the guys who come around with a pairs of flip flop shoes . I was converted from a “libertarian” indifference to abortion to a firm pro-life position by people I respect and to whom I am grateful . I am willing to give converts the same chance .

[livius]

Please, no. Unless McCain is secretly working for the other side and TRYING to lose.

[Reagan Man]

McCain can make certain he will lose to Obama by choosing the liberal Mitt Romney as his running mate.

McCain needs to choose a solid cosnervative. No more moderates and NO liberals.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

"I was willing to pay $145,000 per delegate when I ran for the Republican Presidential nomination.

Now, if I'm selected to run with John McCain as his Vice President, I'll be paying $145 per vote to ever man or woman in America. Cash."

- Willard Mitt Romney

[freespirited]

His great personal wealth could help McCain keep up with Obama's advertising budget, it would also remove another weapon from the GOP arsenal. Having a net worth of over $200 million would only make Republicans look ridiculous as they try to label Barack Obama as an elitist even though he is worth far less.

Have to disagree here. Elitism is not defined by net worth, but by state of mind. Obama could have a negative net worth--he would still be an elitist metrosexual RAT. Ann Romney, who worked hard all her life raising five boys and being dedicated to her church, simply does not come across as an elitist, despite being the daughter of a doctor and being married to a very wealthy man.

I am not saying Mitt is free of any elitist tinge. He just doesnt rise to the level of Bambi.

[Recovering_Democrat]

Adding Romney to the ticket would get a big thumbs up from me....promising to make Romney a Cheney-like Veep who has some teeth would persuade me to even give money.

[Burr5]

I supported Mitt, and his selection would make me more enthusiastic about the pathetic Juan McCain. But Sara Palin is the smarter choice.

[papasmurf]

I'm only going to vote for McManiac if I have confidence in his Veep choice. In Palin, I see the making of an awesome POTUS.

'Nuff said?

[papasmurf]

I'm only going to vote for McManiac if I have confidence in his Veep choice. In Palin, I see the making of an awesome POTUS.

'Nuff said?

...or, JC Watts. :O)

[moose2004]

I hope he picks Palin as well, I think that ticket would be very tough to beat.

[moose2004]

McCain/Palin 08, that has a nice sound to it.

[livius]

Hmmm...McCain Palin...that even looks good on a bumper sticker!

[papasmurf]

I agree 100%. And, we could just stand back and watch about 60% of Hilary supporters casting a vote for Conservatism!

[papasmurf]

Sorry, post 15 was for you, too.

[Recovering_Democrat]

I think Jindal and Palin have GREAT potential, but let’s remember they’re both first term governors. I would much prefer to see them deal with problems in their own states, get re-elected, and become true conservative/national spokespeople.

Right now, throwing these young people into the fire of national limelight before they’ve had a chance to prove their mettle in their home states is setting them up for problems down the road.

I hope to see Jindal and Palin coming to the fore in 2016 and beyond...they will have had 8 years of executive leadership by then.

[Finny]

Gov. Granholm's struggles make Romney's business experience an even stronger asset. This street cred Romney has on the economy has the added bonus of potentially putting an end to the nagging questions about McCain's knowledge of economic issues. And given today's fragile economy and rising gas prices, voters outside of Michigan may also respond favorably to Romney's economic message.

What "message"? That the government should get out of the way as much as possible to let the economy prosper?

Or is his message to more carefully apply government intrusion into business, and what better guy than him, eh?

There is a myth at work that says an MBA thinker who's run major corporations understands economics and is fiscally conservative by definition. It is false on its face.

No, the MBA guy knows how to manage others -- employees and assets. Big business, big government, employees and assets, taxes and citizens -- either one is the same.

Romney's "street cred" is horse manure.

[moose2004]

I thought you might like this, it’s narrated by John Wayne, please send it around:

http://www.mamarocks.com/why_i_love_her.htm

[Colofornian]

I was converted from a “libertarian” indifference to abortion to a firm pro-life position by people I respect and to whom I am grateful . I am willing to give converts the same chance. [kbennkc]

I would suggest that Romney is way overdue for his 2-month innoculation for straying back to "pro-choice" ways. (Better get a pro-life nurse with a pro-life needle to him quick).

For example, within two sentences on Dec. 5, 2007, he said
(a) embryos could be adopted; and then
(b) in the very next sentence, he suggested a "parent" could also "donate" Johnny, Jr. or Plain Jane to "research" for dissection purposes, which he said was "acceptable."

(So much for this very matter--embryonic stem cell issue--being the "heart" of his "pro-life conversion.")

And you know it also doesn't help that with his earlier 2007 statements he kept saying he was "always for life" (Early 2007, South Carolina campaign trail)...
...yet he "wasn't pro-choice" (Aug '07, Fox News)...
...but that he was "effectively pro-choice...the last multiple years" (Early 2007, South Carolina campaign trail)...
...but that "every action" he took was "pro-life" (Aug '07) in those last multiple years...

Wow! Talk about kind of confusin'!...but since he said he would never allow himself to call himself "pro-choice" (Aug '07), I'd guess I'd be confused, too, as to which spirit was actually in control at any given moment.

It was these constant back-and-forth abortion bobs & weaves that in part did him in:
Pro-abortion in 1994;
didn't wish to be labeled "pro-choice" in 2001 letter-to-the editor;
back to his heftiest pro-abortion actions & rhetoric in 2002;
pro-life actions in Winter/spring 2005;
pro-abortion commitment re-stated on May 27, 2005 press conference sandwiched between pro-life actions;
back to aiding & abetting Planned Parenthood & taxpayer subsidized abortions in Spring of 2006.
Then a year full of 2007 where he would alternately tell us that he was "effectively pro-choice...the last multiple years" but that he was "always pro-life" (11 days apart).

I think his most telling confusing time was when he was being interviewed in August 12, 2007 by Chris Wallace on Fox News:

"I never called myself pro-choice. I never allowed myself to use the word pro-choice because I didn't FEEL I was pro-choice. I would protect the law, I said, as it was, but I wasn't pro-choice, and so..."

So there you have it, kbennkc. If inwardly he never labeled himself as “pro-choice,” because he didn’t FEEL “pro-choice,” and so, therefore he wasn’t (ever) “pro-choice,” then tell me what he was converting from again?

[ellery]

McCain should pick someone the party can unite around — not someone who was so divisive in the GOP that he couldn’t even beat McCain himself, despite massively outspending all other candidates.